Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I was thinking, with all this early pulling of pitchers, that, in NL games, if the visiting team has a good hitting pitcher (or at least a pitcher that is a better hitter than that day's starter), they should be in the lineup in the event the team bats all the way to the pitcher's spot. If, as will usually be the case, the pitcher's spot doesn't come in, you just replace him with the guy you intended to use as that day's starter.

I was thinking, with all this early pulling of pitchers, that, in NL games, if the visiting team has a good hitting pitcher (or at least a pitcher that is a better hitter than that day's starter), they should be in the lineup in the event the team bats all the way to the pitcher's spot. If, as will usually be the case, the pitcher's spot doesn't come in, you just replace him with the guy you intended to use as that day's starter.

Yeah, but then you've burned that pitcher, and what happens when it's the 6th inning and you've already used 11 pitchers? That strategy would only work if a pitcher who absolutely would not pitch in that game, like the previous day's starter or something, happened to be a better hitter than that day's starter.

Yeah, but then you've burned that pitcher, and what happens when it's the 6th inning and you've already used 11 pitchers? That strategy would only work if a pitcher who absolutely would not pitch in that game, like the previous day's starter or something, happened to be a better hitter than that day's starter.

I mean, in the playoffs there are probably only one or two guys that are genuinely not available to pitch under any circumstances. But during the regular season, there are three or four.

I assume if teams started trying to do this, there would be a rule change of some kind to prevent. Right?

Yeah, but then you've burned that pitcher, and what happens when it's the 6th inning and you've already used 11 pitchers? That strategy would only work if a pitcher who absolutely would not pitch in that game, like the previous day's starter or something, happened to be a better hitter than that day's starter.

I was assuming it would be a starter. Relievers are generally even worse hitters than starters. So burning them wouldn't be a big deal. So, yeah, that guy would be burned but it would be a situation in which he wasn't going to pitch anyway. I think I recall reading a story of a manager who did this with a reliever just to make sure he wouldn't be tempted later in the game. But I can't find that story, if it happened.

MLB Rule 5.10(f) states that the starting pitcher in the lineup must pitch to the first batter until that batter is put out or reaches base (unless he is too injured or ill to pitch, in the umpire-in-chief's judgement).

Now that I think about it, yeah, wasn't there someone who would announce a LHP as the starter, but then switch to a RHP, or vice versa? I think that's what the rule would have been designed to prevent, no?

The idea has already been ruled out by what Laser Man posted, but I think the only scenario in which those kind of shenanigans might be worth it is if you had a legitimately good hitting pitcher you could use (someone like Mike Hampton). Doing crazy stuff such that in the 1% of times where that spot in the order would even be reached, you'd have a guy who gets a hit 14% of the time instead of a guy who gets a hit 10% of the time seems silly.

But if you had a Mike Hampton-type, you'd presumably much rather keep him around so that you could use him as a pinch hitter after you've run out of position players.

Today’s managers, coaches, and players regularly have their game-time decisions scrutinized. As Bill Felber explains, this wasn’t always the case. The ninth inning of Game 7 in the 1962 World Series featured a virtually continuous string of decisive moments, which the media did not second guess.

If the ninth inning of the seventh game of the 1962 World Series unfolded today, it would be the most widely second-guessed amalgam of decisions in sports history. The fascinating aspect of that decisive inning is that at the time it was played, it generated little public second-guessing at all.

Perhaps we were a more deferential, less opinionated fan base back then. Certainly our access to analytical data has improved. But this much was known then and remains true today: The ninth inning of Game 7 in 1962 is the only time in World Series history when the fates of both teams rose or fell directly on the outcome of the final play.

For retrospective second guessers, the inning is a veritable trove of choices, each of them carrying the additional gravity of being decisive in the outcome of the World Series. Pitching changes or non-changes, intentional walks, sacrifices, runner advances—all of these most sensitive issues that delight and vex armchair managers—coalesced into the New York Yankees’ 1–0 victory over the San Francisco Giants....

MLB Rule 5.10(f) states that the starting pitcher in the lineup must pitch to the first batter until that batter is put out or reaches base (unless he is too injured or ill to pitch, in the umpire-in-chief's judgement).

Came close to seeing this in 2016 - Cubs @ Phillies - Phillies starter Vince Velzquez threw a couple of pitches and was gone.

MLB Rule 5.10(f) states that the starting pitcher in the lineup must pitch to the first batter until that batter is put out or reaches base (unless he is too injured or ill to pitch, in the umpire-in-chief's judgement).

One of my favorite things about baseball is the way that the rule book seems to have already been amended to address every random little thing we can possibly imagine.

I've lost count of how many times that idea has been slammed by knowledgeable fans: you've gotta stick with the guys who are good, but slumping, because you never know when they might recover.

Discuss.

Note: I warmed up the old Admiral and hooked up the aerial to it and I'm getting good signals. Beats having Chrome freeze up MLB.tv right as the pitch is delivered and then fast-forwarding to the hitter scratching his nuts.

Or, in the playoffs all that matters is starting pitching, or you don't want to play that team with three good starters, or that team only has to have the lead after 5 innings cuz their bullpen is so good. All of that horsebleep.

Playoffs are small sample size. Small sample size can be very nearly random. A great player can make a terrible play that turns a game and a series. A nobody can hit 3 HRs (Keke Hernandez take a bow). It's luck. Play the percentages and pray.

I just stopped while driving my car, picked up a lost dog wandering half a mile from my house, took 45 minutes to detective him to his owner while walking around the neighborhood, and made it back for first pitch, because I am goddamned awesome.

Be sure to kneel. Or stand. I forget which, unless this is G.B.A. in which case you should kneel, genuflect, place your hands in prayer position, and bow your head while thinking about our mighty military.

A good article. A couple of the stratagems employed, the sac bunt and leaving the SP in were much more universally accepted in 1962 than today. Not surprising nobody made an issue of either. If George Kell thought Alou wouldn't have made it, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. I grew up on George Kell doing the TV games for the Tigers, and while he was corny and very old-school, he had a keen eye. But it begs the question of why it took Alou so long to get to 3B. Maybe he forgot there were 2 outs? I don't know, but it might have cost the Giants a championship.

I truly love watching the World Series and genuinely feeling like I'm 50/50 on my rooting interests. All I want is fun, exciting plays and good performances. I cheered when Turner hit the ball and then cheered when Springer caught it.

Yup, I had the same enjoyment watching Royals v Mets, but that's about it in the past decade or so. every other year, it has been easy for me to identify the villainous club or clubs as the case has been a couple times.

I'll be honest, while I agree in principle with all the anger about the ads, I actually haven't noticed them at all.

Like, I believe you that they exist, but if not for the comments I genuinely would have no idea that it was even happening. Am I the only one for whom this is true? Am I just really good at tuning out ads?

Like, I believe you that they exist, but if not for the comments I genuinely would have no idea that it was even happening. Am I the only one for whom this is true? Am I just really good at tuning out ads?

It's not the ads so much as it is Buck announcing each one before it airs.

I am with you Baldrick, I tune the in game commercials out - but it is because of primer. I refresh or read comments during the down times. Consequently, I notice the between inning commercials more because there is nothing to read.

If you were still looking at and listening to the TV, that's pretty impressive. You're a marketer's worst nightmare.

I mean, I'm on my computer writing some things and also futzing around on the internet. I mostly just ignore what the commentators say anyways, so I guess that's equipped me with the tools to ignore the ads, too.

Satan, I agree that Roberts used Hill according to higher plan. But the saber case for "no three times through the order" is not certain, Hill's splits really defy it and, if you're going to have a quick hook with your starter, you have to get them when they look like Darvish looked early. Simply replacing "starters should go deep no matter what" with "starters should never go three times through" is just replacing one foolish rigid mantra with another.